Why isn't auto L Canceling an option?

[Bleck]

you should probably stop posting in this thread, kiddo

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

This thread just seems really unnecessary to me. I actually don't care for L-canceling either way, I only practice and use to better my game. I would be fine with the suggestion of auto L-cancel, but honestly there is no way this will happen. Even if they add the option it will never be tournament standard. If your not into PM competitively then why care for it anyway? I actually agree with those opposed to it, but do you honestly see them getting rid of it? If you play competitively then you might as well just suck it up and learn it and if it bothers you that much then all I can say is maybe PM isn't the smash for you.

I care because I think it is legitimately bad game design and want to see PM get away from being a melee clone just to be a melee clone and try more to be just a legit smash game.

I love Melee, but I don't think many things PM brought over were a good idea at all.

I want to see it develop and change for the better, not cling and drag things back in just because it was in a past game. Will it happen ideally? most likely not, but it doesn't mean there isn't a very valid and very good reason as to why people want it gone.

 

[Kati]

Did anyone play brawl+? it taught me to enjoy l cancelling. It had auto l cancelling.

 

[BluntedMask]

you should probably stop posting in this thread, kiddo

Everyone should stop posting in this thread.

And snake in brawl+ was busted.

Edit: Yup, I sure was trolling. <_<

 

[Bleck]

blaming any outstanding balance issues in Brawl+ on automatic l-canceling is fairly short-sighted

 

[Foo]

Pretty sure no one's response actually addressed the tc's question. But maybe I'm just too scared of wading through pages of a trite argument.

This isn't a thread for debating l cancelling.

That dead horse already flew into the winds of time as decomposed dust.


The question is "why isn't auto l-cancelling an option?"

To which there is a simple answer. For every new "physical" feature PMDT has added, be it the turbo item, all star mode, or input assist, something has had to be taken out. PMDT has never once modified the menu system in such a way that they can insert brand new options.

Now that we have add on functionality though, the need to labour over menu editing is sort of a thing of the past. Assuming a few lines of code could enable brawl+esque landing lag, an add on containing only rsbe.gct could possibly be what the tc is looking for.

Again though guys, PMDT is a volunteer group, if you want it, try to do it yourself first. Between smashboards and the kitty corp forums you have access to all the resources you need to start injecting codes yourself.

You haven't read the thread, yet criticize us for our posts... lol

Side note, @FireBall Stars and everyone else who suggested it, I feel that making is optional is actual the worst thing to do right now. It has to be mandatory one way or the other. If it's optional, all of the more casual players will turn it off, and all of the tourneys will keep it on. This will heavily discourage casual players from making the transition to tournament play. I almost certainly would not have gotten into competitive play if L-canceling was optional. I had a really hard time learning L-cancelling at first, and almost rage quit smash over it. Letting casual players turn it off, while all of the tournaments keep it on will just create an even bigger divide between casual and competitive players. (I think turning it off all around would REALLY help grow the tournament scene, that's why I am so adamant about it).

As much as I like L canceling, and believe removing it is a step into the wrong direction, defending it is a bit of a losing battle. Standards have to be set regarding difficulty in video games, and with a game like smash, that consists of very simple inputs, L canceling is a great way to give something something difficulty, while keeping it decently simple. Making something in a video game difficult gives the action value, as you wouldn't get recognition or a sense of accomplishment from learning something easy. Though giving something that should be easy unnecessary difficulty, or too much is a slippery slope to that term people have been throwing around in here, "arbitrary difficulty". Now does L canceling fit that description? Well you can decide that for yourself, cause I honestly don't feel like bashing my head against the rock that is that argument.

Allow me though to pitch something that might appeal to the people against L canceling, how about we implement automatic L canceling, but only to a certain extent. What I mean by that is what if when you don't press a button, you get a slight reduction in lag, not a full cancel. Then you could have it to where when you do input a button to attempt to L cancel and miss, you get the full landing lag, giving you an actual reason not to L cancel, as you have quite a bit less risk to worry about, though the reward is lessened. It would also give more weight to attempting an L cancel, because even though with this method you reduce the most lag, you also risk the most lag.

I think it would be a nice middle ground to consider if it's needed. Because I'd rather the mechanic to not be removed completely, but at the same time, I can see people's arguments against it, and could see adjustments to it.

Eh, I don't like that idea. The problem is, being less punished for NOT L-canceling gives less incentive for them to learn L-cancelling, making them less likely to join the tournament scene since, even with this, you'd NEED l cancelling to compete on the vast majority of characters. Also, getting punished for missing them would be an even bigger reason to not try and learn it. Imo, we either remove it completely or leave it as is, and I'm not sure there's any middle ground better than just leaving it.

 

[Kati]

This debate has been going on for years. Pardon me for not reading everyone's original solution every time it is brought up. I'm criticizing people for taking someone's thread and steering it off course to a topic that's already been decided on. I read the first page, and assumed that the following pages consisted of the same argument, am I wrong? I'll gladly read everything if I'm wrong.

 

[Phan7om]

Every time I read threads like this, I wonder. If someone were to find a valid handful of situations where it would be best to not lcancel, or not lcancel as a mixup, or whatever... would that strengthen the argument to keep it the way it is or strengthen the argument to remove it because its jank or some ****?

And dont reply saying "you wont", this is simply What If?

 

[GP&B]

Only example I can think of is something Hylian mentioned about IC's that helps with desync tricks.

Outside of that, even 64 had at least one or two instances (among 12 characters mind you) where Z-cancels actually prevent certain hitboxes from coming out. 64 also has no fail window on Z-cancels and a good deal less strenuous tech so the mechanic is barely intrusive in that game.

 

[MagnesD3]

L canceling is a very pointless mechanic indeed. It's only in because of melee but it will never go away so is get used to it.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

L canceling is a very pointless mechanic indeed. It's only in because of melee but it will never go away so is get used to it.

That's kinda telling someone "no johns" without any real thought to it.

 

[MagnesD3]

That's kinda telling someone "no johns" without any real thought to it.

Its an arbitrary execution barrier that doesnt add depth to the game, I didnt elaborate because its already been said why its unneeded. It can be fun but Id rather there be some strategy behind it or something or it be removed entirely.

 

[masterpad]

To have depth in a game: getting strategy behind an action is not the only way. The simple relation "succed in performing an action"=>"offensive or defensive advantage reward" is also enough to justify the presence of this action

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

To have depth in a game: getting strategy behind an action is not the only way. The simple relation "succed in performing an action"=>"offensive or defensive advantage reward" is also enough to justify the presence of this action

Tech skill is a part of a game in that regard but it needs purpose or the action is meaningless in terms of the game itself.

 

[masterpad]

Tech skill is a part of a game in that regard but it needs purpose or the action is meaningless in terms of the game itself.

this looks like pure ideology to me.
in which manner, an action that , when well performed, gives a defensive or an offensive advantages should have others reasons to be worthy kept in the game.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

this looks like pure ideology to me.
in which manner, an action that , when well performed, gives a defensive or an offensive advantages should have others reasons to be worthy kept in the game.

That's game design, not ideology.

It needs purpose in some shape or form for gameplay.

In this case, it also needs choice. Which this fails on offering that because there is none.

 

[Foo]

this looks like pure ideology to me.
in which manner, an action that , when well performed, gives a defensive or an offensive advantages should have others reasons to be worthy kept in the game.

It is ideology. It's called game design philosophy. A big part of smash game design is that all inputs are as simple as you can make them, but in melee, there were so many different inputs at such speeds, that even though they couldn't be made more simple or easy without losing depth, it was still really hard. This is what made that game so competitively successful. You could add in a million things like L-cancelling that gives you an advantage for hitting it and a disadvantage for missing it, and it would only make the game worse, and it would only make new player less and less interested in playing and entering the competitive scene.

Your point supports being forced to do quarter or half circles on the analog stick to do smash attacks, having to spin the stick as you do a tech roll or you trip, having to hit A within 5 frames of a throws release point otherwise you drop them like they mashed out, not being able to use the c-stick for aerials etc. etc. Any and all of those would fit with your idea of a good mechanic, but they would all suck.

Also, don't look at it from the perspective of "should we remove it" look at it as "If we were making a smash game from scratch, would we add it?" If it doesn't pass the second test, it's not justified to be kept. You also have to keep in mind that L-cancelling really hurts the competitive scene because it serves as a wall between casual and competitive players. My inability to L-cancel when I was first playing almost made me RQ smash. If I had given in to it, or had had more things going in on my life at the time, NC would never have gotten one of it's top players (more importantly the guy who teaches people how to deal with non-guaranteed stuff from people higher than them) and pretty much their only commentator.

 

[masterpad]

It is ideology because you are making the choice/stategy the heart of the game design which is not!
Even if it is ONE of the main game desing element in general.

If i succed to perform my land-cancel , i COULD be able to protect myself when i miss my Bair/Nair/Fair or i COULD be able to perform a combo by stryking again when i first hit my opponent with my Bair/Nair/Fair.

Here is the condition, here is the reward! And it's also a valuable point in game design. Stop doing like everything starts and ends with the reason to choice to do something or not; here is just the reason to succed in performing something.

I DON'T want to be able to perform combos or protect myself after a sucessful or a missed Bair/Nair/Fair without any condition!

L-Cancel is a perfect invention, at least i could understand the point about making a side option where it can be set to auto for beginner and even in this case i will be against because IMO this is what a competitive game is and newcommers should deal with it.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

It is ideology because you are making the choice/stategy the heart of the game design which is not!
Even if it is ONE of the main game desing element in general.

If i succed to perform my land-cancel , i COULD be able to protect myself when i miss my Bair/Nair/Fair or i COULD be able to perform a combo by stryking again when i hit my opponent with my Bair/Nair/Fair.
Here is the condition, here is the reward!
I DON'T want to be able to perform combos or protect myself after a sucessful or a missed Bair/Nair/Fair without any condition!

L-Cancel is a perfect invention, at least i could understand the point about making a side option where it can be set to auto for beginner and even in this case i will be against because IMO this is what a competitive game is and newcommers should deal with it.

You keep side stepping the main point. Yes there is reward, but it misses out on the how lack of decision making and how it arbitrary makes the game harder just to be harder.

Difficulty is fine, but it needs purpose. Otherwise you are just fighting the game itself.

 

[masterpad]

You keep side stepping the main point. Yes there is reward, but it misses out on the how lack of decision making and how it arbitrary makes the game harder just to be harder.

Difficulty is fine, but it needs purpose. Otherwise you are just fighting the game itself.

I like your last sentence but like i all ready told the puporse is the reward.

There are really more difficult mecanism in certains games like Vitual-Fighter's timing or Budokai-Tenkaishi3 recoveries .
And many people adopt a double speech about l-cancel's difficulty :
sometimes is just a wall that can not make the difference between two advanced players since it's so easy to perform.
sometimes it a maniac , pain in the ass difficulty input that only affraid newcomers and virtually add complexity to the game.

Succed in performing L-Cancel gives COULD(since it also depends of the opponent's percentage/speed/reactivity/shield position...) give an obvious offensive/defensive advantage.

No decision has to be made, just perform your land-cancel and if you find it too easy to do, create a thread and ask for a more difficult input for it.

The mistake in all this, is to consider the value of a competitive mecanic only from a strategy point.

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

Wow. I'd hate to play any games you plan to make.

 

[mimgrim]

Le sigh.

All it comes down to is this;

Is execution for the sake of execution a good thing?

Hint: The answer is entirely subjective and there is no correct answer and thus varies from player to player.

 

[LancerStaff]

I'd say Megaman would be a good example of not fighting the character. No horizontal momentum, shot cap is easily reached + boss invincibility, no difficult imputs outside of the Street Fighter Easter Eggs... At no point do you feel like you were being held back by the character. Which I believe contributed to Megaman's success even though the games were difficult, kinda like Smash here.

 

[robosteven]

let's just bring l-cancelling back to 64 speed and make it automatic there problem solved

 

[GP&B]

let's just bring l-cancelling back to 64 speed and make it automatic there problem solved

oh god everyone would be + on shield
Ike could fair on shield into grab

 

[robosteven]

oh god everyone would be + on shield
Ike could fair on shield into grab

sounds balanced

 

[Broccoli]

"correctly l-canceling" is not the victory condition in PM

Scoring a touchdown isn't the victory condition in Football.

In before "I never said it was."

 

[Bleck]

I'm uh pretty uh sure that the point of football is uh to score the most touchdowns

 

[robosteven]

I thought the goal sportball was to get points and touchdowns were a way of doing that

 

[Narpas_sword]

I thought the goal sportball was to get points and touchdowns were a way of doing that

The goal in sportsball is to sports better than the other team sports.

 

[Ganreizu]

The sole objective of football is to catch the batch and get touchdowns. You can't have football without people catching the ball, where as L cancelling is not a needed mechanic, which makes your comparison poor.

The sole objective of competitive melee is to take stocks and perform combos. You can't take stocks easily enough to succeed or perform necessary combos in high level play without L-cancelling.

If you can't understand how perfect that comparison was then there is no hope for you.

 

[Bleck]

If you can't understand how perfect that comparison was then there is no hope for you.

the comparison was bad because the discussion is about what should be rather than what is; if you don't understand that, that's okay, but it doesn't mean you're allowed to be condescending to people

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I like your last sentence but like i all ready told the puporse is the reward.

There are really more difficult mecanism in certains games like Vitual-Fighter's timing or Budokai-Tenkaishi3 recoveries .
And many people adopt a double speech about l-cancel's difficulty :
sometimes is just a wall that can not make the difference between two advanced players since it's so easy to perform.
sometimes it a maniac , pain in the *** difficulty input that only affraid newcomers and virtually add complexity to the game.

Succed in performing L-Cancel gives COULD(since it also depends of the opponent's percentage/speed/reactivity/shield position...) give an obvious offensive/defensive advantage.

No decision has to be made, just perform your land-cancel and if you find it too easy to do, create a thread and ask for a more difficult input for it.

The mistake in all this, is to consider the value of a competitive mecanic only from a strategy point.

It's not complexity though, it's hitting a button when you land and if you do it in a shorter time frame they can't do anything to mess it up.

Techskill is a part of the game but it still requires decision making. Doing charge moves in street fighter still has choice if you even want to perform the move or not.

You are asking why decision making should matter at all.

I'm saying ti should because I feel like making the player feel like they are fighting the game is actually really bad for a control set-up. You can make a game difficult without making that a thing and making that tech skill actually have depth and choice.

Which is what makes a game great.

 

[masterpad]

It's not complexity though, it's hitting a button when you land and if you do it in a shorter time frame they can't do anything to mess it up.

Techskill is a part of the game but it still requires decision making. Doing charge moves in street fighter still has choice if you even want to perform the move or not.

You are asking why decision making should matter at all.

I'm saying ti should because I feel like making the player feel like they are fighting the game is actually really bad for a control set-up. You can make a game difficult without making that a thing and making that tech skill actually have depth and choice.

Which is what makes a game great.

You really sounds like a dogma my friend: choice, strategy, do it or not...
Yes , is a valuable part of a fighting game design but buy why making it the whole point in such a way?
input that needs skills to be performed for a rewards had always exits in fighting games and are equally important in game design.

"King of Fighter's 97"(if my memories are good) introduce something in fighting games: to perform the longest possible combo with a character you should link your simple attack to your special attack with a new little attack that was usually a forwad+little/weak punch or forward+little/weak kick.

From the way people use to perform combos in the KOF series this new way requires more liveliness.
The new little attack itself didn't cause much damage.But since the game has a damage mutilicator factor for combos, succed in performing "simple attack"=>"special attack" was less rewarded than "simple attack"=>"new little attack"=>"special attack".
It is a gameplay mecanic , there is nothing to choose.

And there are much more examples like that in many games! people never find that they are fighting the game itself they just find that there is reward in succeeding to perform a particular imput and they deal with it.

I am 30 years old and i have deeply played so many kind of fighting games since i was 12 .I have played all the popular series and I've always been particulary attracted by atypical games that stand out of their kinds like : Killer Instinct, Mortal Kombat, Tobal, Gekido Urban Fighters(arena mode), Rival Schools, Clayfighter, Smash(of course) and recently HokutoNoKen

L-Cancel in his manner, is nothing but a common input with a common function in a fighting game.
And must people against l-Cancel are fanatics of a point of view about game play design that are thinking their position is the entire definition of design in fighting games.

 

[SpiderMad]

@W.A.C Are you full pressing or light pressing your L-cancels?

Crap now it's not gonna ping him even if I edit it

 

[9bit]

@W.A.C Are you full pressing or light pressing your L-cancels?

Crap now it's not gonna ping him even if I edit it

I got ya, buddy

@ W.A.C. check out the post I quoted!

 

[masterpad]

Wow. I'd hate to play any games you plan to make.

I'd hate to make a game that you'll plan to play

 

[KeyOfTruth]

The reason L-Cancelling still exists is simple: Human error. The meaning of L-Cancelling goes beyond player choice, nobody can choose to perfectly L-Cancel 100% of the time. This is to create a greater diversity in matches, no matter how skillful combating players may be. Smart players will always be ready to capitalize on an opponents mistakes, even as small as a missed L-Cancel. A failed L-Cancel may give you the opportunity to escape otherwise perfect shield pressure, it's what causes even the most skilled players to drop an occasional combo. Human error prevents stalemate situations with the continuous threat of screwing up an input, because these mistakes are what create openings in which your opponent can punish you. No matter how seemingly arbitrary L-Cancelling may be, removing it would hurt the diversity of competitive matches.

 

[.alizarin]

The reason L-Cancelling still exists is simple: Human error. The meaning of L-Cancelling goes beyond player choice, nobody can choose to perfectly L-Cancel 100% of the time. This is to create a greater diversity in matches, no matter how skillful combating players may be. Smart players will always be ready to capitalize on an opponents mistakes, even as small as a missed L-Cancel. A failed L-Cancel may give you the opportunity to escape otherwise perfect shield pressure, it's what causes even the most skilled players to drop an occasional combo. Human error prevents stalemate situations with the continuous threat of screwing up an input, because these mistakes are what create openings in which your opponent can punish you. No matter how seemingly arbitrary L-Cancelling may be, removing it would hurt the diversity of competitive matches.

or you could have diversity from how people play the game instead of an arbitrary button press...

 

[robosteven]

Human error.

This would be a factor with or without l-cancelling.